Points of Order Debate

Full Debate: Read Full Debate

Points of Order

Liam Byrne Excerpts
Monday 4th July 2011

(13 years, 4 months ago)

Commons Chamber
Read Full debate Read Hansard Text
Liam Byrne Portrait Mr Liam Byrne (Birmingham, Hodge Hill) (Lab)
- Hansard - -

On a point of order, Mr Speaker. Both you and “Erskine May” have made it very clear that, by a resolution of this House, Ministers should be as open as possible with Parliament, refusing to provide information only when disclosure would not be in the public interest. Nineteen days ago, this House completed debate on the Welfare Reform Bill, including a measure to place a cap on benefits. During the debate, on 17 May, the hon. Member for Cardiff Central (Jenny Willott) said that she had “heard” that Department for Communities and Local Government estimates forecast a rise in homelessness of 20,000 if the measure was introduced and that the policy would cost more than it saved. The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions, the right hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) replied by saying

“I have no clear evidence that further information is available”––[Official Report, Welfare Reform Public Bill Committee, 17 May 2011; c. 985.]

beyond the impact assessment.

Yesterday, we learned that the DCLG had, in fact, written to the Prime Minister’s office, ahead of a meeting of the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister, the Chancellor and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, to say that, yes, the DCLG’s assumptions were that homelessness would rise by 20,000 and the policy would cost more than it saved. It seems inconceivable that this cast list and the hon. Member for Cardiff Central all knew about this and the Department for Work and Pensions Ministers did not. In addition, the Secretary of State has signed an impact assessment which makes no mention of the DCLG’s concerns. He said that his picture was

“a fair and reasonable view of the expected costs, benefits and impact of the policy”,

even though it does not contain the warning that was issued to the heart of government. My question is, therefore, very simple: how do we in this House bring Ministers to account for who knew what and when, and why did they not disclose crucial, material information to this House?

None Portrait Several hon. Members
- Hansard -

rose